↓ Skip to main content

Buddhism and Medical Futility

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Buddhism and Medical Futility
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11673-012-9392-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tuck Wai Chan, Desley Hegney

Abstract

Religious faith and medicine combine harmoniously in Buddhist views, each in its own way helping Buddhists enjoy a more fruitful existence. Health care providers need to understand the spiritual needs of patients in order to provide better care, especially for the terminally ill. Using a recently reported case to guide the reader, this paper examines the issue of medical futility from a Buddhist perspective. Important concepts discussed include compassion, suffering, and the significance of the mind. Compassion from a health professional is essential, and if medical treatment can decrease suffering without altering the clarity of the mind, then a treatment should not be considered futile. Suffering from illness and death, moreover, is considered by Buddhists a normal part of life and is ever-changing. Sickness, old age, birth, and death are integral parts of human life. Suffering is experienced due to the lack of a harmonious state of body, speech, and mind. Buddhists do not believe that the mind is located in the brain, and, for Buddhists, there are ways suffering can be overcome through the control of one's mind.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 16 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2012.
All research outputs
#1,726,167
of 3,627,916 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#64
of 120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,316
of 275,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,627,916 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 50th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.